Why is there more online vitriol towards Megan Markle than Andrew?

[ladykale]

I find it ridiculous how there is consistent hate towards Megan markle when she does pretty low key things like launching jam that no one is being forced to buy. People were delighted that she is no longer using HRH titles and even said she shouldn’t call herself the Duchess of Sussex (even though that is distinct from royal titles).

On the flip side - NO ONE has called for an actual investigation into Prince Andrew on the days that he claimed to be at Pizza Express in Woking, when his movements are logged by the royal gamily and his security detail so they eill
know exactly where he was!

He slept with an underage victim of sex trafficking who
conveniently died by suicide shortly before her memoir naming and shaming many individuals came out.

Limited criticism of the late Queen who used £12million
pg her personal money to pay off an underage sec trafficking victim & shielded him from any investigation.

Disgusted by it all and was amused to see the vitriol on an article about Megan breathing, whereas limited calls for Andrew to be investigated by any U.S or UK authorities!

WHY?

Yeah, that’s the pattern, they’d just twist it, defend it and act like you’re the problem, but anyone paying attention can see what’s going on. That’s how they try to shut down anyone who doesn’t fall in line with their little bully group mentality. And honestly, someone already pointed out how wild it is that Mumsnet even tolerates people defending a predator, or this level of mysoginy. I never reported those posts either, because I felt they showed exactly what kind of mindset we were dealing with for historical evidence, but it still wasn’t okay.

But that’s fact isn’t it? There may be other crimes he’s guilty of that warrant a custodial sentence but consensual sex with a person above the age of consent wouldn’t be one of them.

Trafficking and prostitution

There is only so many times that I can post that Andrew is a sleazeball. Eventually when I see someone still defending Andrew despite incisive posts by highly literate posters explaining why he is a sleazeball, I just assume the defender is either an Andrew fanatic or has an agenda and will never change. Why beat my head against a brick wall?

Edited for typo.

I agree that the posts should be left to stand, but I feel strongly that posters should call them out on the thread. When something is so terrible and you don’t shred with his actions being minimised, it’s the right thing to do. Whatever else people disagree on, decent people should come together against someone defending Andrew.

I don’t know but I suspect those comments were made long before the latest revelations courtesy of Andrew Lownie’s book. People are capable of reassessing in the light of new information. When did you see these posts?

Posters repeatedly discuss and mention the same issues regarding Meghan so why not this? You would think there would be only so many times or ways you can mock her jam or whatever, but no, it keeps being done. Fair enough, I don’t really care about that, but i do care when Andrew apologists go unchallenged by others. It’s an important issue.

Every time I saw someone call it out, they were immediately pushed off the thread with condescending or even hostile replies, personal digs, derailing to Meghan (even when the topic had nothing to do with her), justifying of the royal family in enabling ways as if they never do wrong, or other misogynistic nonsense and minimising. So the calling does happen, but most people just don't have the energy to keep pushing back against that level of chaos, in a leisure forum. That’s how it looked from what I observed

In what way do you believe the laws on trafficking and prostitution apply to Andrew? Not minimising, just struggling to see what the specific criminal charge against him would be.

Well they have increase sentences for “commerce in women and children”, which would apply to Epstein of course, but trafficking and prostitution are illegal in both the US and the UK too. So how are their laws “better” and how do they apply to anyone other than Epstein, who was convicted of a crime?

There were a couple of posters, whose names I didn't recognise so I can't remember them, on the recent threads defending Andrew. They were using arguments that made even less sense than the ones listed above, on a par with the ridiculous Meghan was never pregnant lies in terms of logic and sense.

I thought they were bots or trolls and ignored them. I prefer to engage with the discussion rather than get side tracked by trolls. I'm happy to push back on things that make sense where you can have a discussion but these were basically apologists for predators.

I feel like you’re baiting me for some reason?!

I seem to recall she received money from Andy
also it’s illegal to receive ‘benefits’ from trafficked people. I’m not in law, I’m a scientist so it’s not exactly my area of expertise

No. I was just curious why you thought somewhere had “better” laws, and to whom and how these would apply. I didn’t, and still don’t, understand what you mean by that and I would like to. But I am getting piecemeal answers so I have to keep refining my question apparently 🤷‍♀️

Eta. I see you have partially answered in another post below

According to the FDA, her product is actually fruit spread as it doesn't meet the criteria for jam in the US. I've given up on correcting that since US food labeling laws don't seem of interest to Meghan fans. Ditto food handler basics. I do have a food handler license and worked in the food industry so I know what I'm talking about.

My elected officials, the ones I voted for in US elections, have been asking for the Epstein files to be released. I don't see what else I can do at this time.

Edited for typo.

That makes sense.

I don’t think so, it’s just that you said Andrew should be in prison but haven’t been clear why - as in, what laws he broke, not whether morally he belongs there.

Agree with this.

I have consistently been clear that I believe Andrew should face justice if there is evidence sufficient to prosecute, convict and sentence in an appropriate court. Laws do not work retrospectively, so if what he did was immoral and repulsive but not illegal at the time, he should not be convicted. (I do not know what evidence there is.)

I have also criticised some of Andrew Lownie's public comments and actions. That does not mean that I am seeking to 'undermine' his work. It means I disagree with some of his choices and behaviours.

I remain convinced that Andrew has been a useful scapegoat for powerful men on each side of the Atlantic.

I’m glad you found time to correct me about the jam issue and seem to have corrected others in the past. You could probably better spend your time correcting the Andrew apologists though rather than correcting posters like me about jam. Up to you but I know what I’d rather. 😉 😅

I’m not a Meghan ‘fan’, I’m neutral as I’ve said before, but I am an Andrew hater.

It is very interesting to notice which posters persist in telling others where and what they should post.

I think AMW gets preferential
treatment, he should be put in front of a judge and jury. If he’s able to ‘avoid’ the British and possibly the US judicial system, hopefully the US virgin islands, had he been at the JE island the same time as trafficked women and children, then hopefully they’ll be more
Inclined to pursue any relevant crimes. Not
just Andy, anyone else who would be potentially a criminal in relation to these trafficked children

@AllThisTime

What is it with you telling others what they should be doing.

You do you.

You don’t need to be concerned about other posters whereabouts on MN, what they should or shouldn’t be posting about and telling them how, in your opinion, their time would be better spent on a thread you deem more acceptable.

Jeez!

For what, though? You don’t just put someone in front of a judge and jury, they have to be charged with an offence before they can be judged. What offence should he be charged with? Are you saying all of the staff at the island should be charged? The cleaners and the gardeners?

Having sex with a trafficked woman/child. Paying for sex. If the maids and gardeners had sex with the girls then yes!

I do find it odd how much energy goes into correcting people about what counts as jam, jelly, fruit spread or whatever. unless they genuinely work with food or are really into recipes, I guess it matters to them, trivia info. But honestly, most people couldn’t care less, of they like the product and are getting quality stuff it won't change anything. It’s trivial compared to Andrew and everything connected to him and the current members of royal family linked to him. Still, if that’s what makes the poster happy, fair enough.